F 91 
.C76 
Copy 1 



AN 
OPEN LETTER 

TO THE 

PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS 

OF THE 

CONNECTICUT HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 



JAMES TERRY. 

December, 1906. 






In Exchaii^s 
2 My 'OB 



No. 78 Wethersfield Ave. 
Hartford, Conn. 

Dr. Samuel Hart, President Connecticut Historical Society, 
Dear Sir : — 

In accordance with the promise in your letter of October 
8th, I am in receipt of a "Report of the Publication Committee 
upon the use of Society Titles on Private Publications of Mem- 
bers.** The reason why this letter is in printed form is that I 
desire to have the whole matter placed before every member of 
the Society, to whom a copy will be sent for their consideration. 
The report is an ex-parte one, for it does not touch upon the vital 
issue in question: the unreliability of Mr. Bates's publication 
in connection with his official title, and use of the same for 
private ends. You give no reason in the report for dismember- 
ing my query from its connecting issue, and endeavoring to 
obscure and side track the main question, neither do you 
submit any part of your letters to those individuals and 
societies to show whether they covered the whole ground. In 
your letter of October 8th, you state, "I will put the matter 
into the hands of the Publication Committee, or rather into the 
hands of the members of it, excluding Mr. Bates,** and yet he 
contributed some of the responses given in the report of your 
Committee. His participation, without signing the report, shows 
his lack of that fine sense of honor which insures clean hands. 
The judges of our courts act differently. 

My letter printed below shows fully my contention in this 
matter, of which you have taken cognizance of only a part. 
In the endeavor made in the report to sustain the use of official 



title on private publications, all the quoted authors and their 
publications are placed upon the same level as the one under 
discussion, a great injustice to them, and another uplifting of an 
unworthy object. 

I am willing to donate $J000 to the publication fund of our 
Society, if the Committee will produce a paper issued by any 
society or individual quoted, which is based upon equally false 
assumptions and premises, and so grievous in error. 

I should like to ask Dr. Hart if, in your capacity as Dean 
of the Berkeley Divinity School, you should publish an heretical 
paper with your official title, whether you v/ould attempt in an 
explanation to your Bishop, or a Diocesan Court, to put your- 
self in a dual pers onality, as is attempted for the Librarian in 
this report. (See paragraph (d) of report.) Should you do so, 
he undoubtedly would say, ^* You cannot serve two masters.** 

"Would you, as ** Custodian of the Protestant Episcopal 
Prayer Book of the United States,** sanction or permit the 
rector of an Episcopal church to make a change in this prayer 
book used in his church service, on the plea that it was a 
personal matter, and not as an official of the church ? Would 
you be willing to receive Mr. Bates into the Berkeley Divinity 
School as a pupil to prepare for orders in the church, with the 
understanding that his ^* personal** opinions were a free lance as 
against his clerical duties ? That his right hand knoweth not 
what his left hand doeth ! 

I would call your attention to one of the most noted cases 
of discipline in your church, the Rev. Dr. Crapsey, who published 
his book, '* Religion and Politics/* with simply his name, but 
who had not the weakness to attempt to hide behind a dual 
^ personality, whose conscientiousness would have scorned such 

contemptible evasion of his personal beliefs, to relieve himself 
from the censure of the Church Court of Review. 



I have never known but one personality that exceeded its 
oneness to be a success. 

This eminent thinker in this same book states that *' religion 
and history are so closely associated that it is impossible to treat 
of one without reference to the other,'^ and I have yet to learn 
in what manner false assumptions and doctrines against the 
policies of the church, are different from those against the 
policies of our historical society ; both institutions are supposed 
to stand for the truth. 

Before proceeding farther I will submit a copy of the 
essential part of my letter to you of October 5th. 

78 Wethersfield Ave., Hartford, Conn., 

Oct. 5, J 906. 
Dr. Samuel Hart, 

Dear Sir : — 

The matter I desired to bring before the Society 
was the unwarranted use by Mr. Bates of his official title with 
the Society on a publication issued by him last July, the title of 
his publication and review by me you already have in hand. 
This use by Mr. Bates of his official position in the Society on 
the publication noted, gives a quasi-endorsement of the Society 
to the paper, which paper is founded purely on a false as- 
sumption. See page 5 of his book. ..... 

Had Mr. Bates printed his book without official title, and 
put in its place A Romance, I should have taken no notice of it, 
but I do not consider it the function of the Connecticut Historic- 
al Society to circulate fiction. 

I shall be pleased to hear from you what action the Society 

takes in the matter. 

Sincerely yours, 

James Terry. 



The fepoft of the Pablication Committee is as follows: 
Report of the Pablication Committee upon the Use of Society 

Titles on Private Publications of Members. 

At the last previous meeting of the Society, objection was 
raised to the use by the Librarian of his official title on his 
private publications without first obtaining the formal consent 
of the Society, it being suggested that such use amounted to a 
quasi-guarantee by the Society of the contents of such publica- 
tions. The Publication Committee were desired to report to the 
Society upon this matter ; but as the Librarian is a member of 
this committee, its deliberations were necessarily made without 

(a) him. The duty of the remaining members is evidently 
comprised in three procedures: first, to ascertain the previous 
practice of this Society ; second, to ascertain the corresponding 
practice of other societies of a like nature; third, to advise 
concerning the future practice desirable for this Society* 

Regarding the first, we find that the uniform practice of 
this Society has been to leave the matter to the choice and 
discretion of the writer, without formal permission; and that 
such titles have been frequently used, and never before criticised. 
Our two distinguished Presidents, J. Hammond Trumbull and 
Charles J. Hoadley, both noted for punctilious insistence upon 
official proprieties, so acted at will. Dr. Trumbull used the title 
of Corresponding Secretary upon the first two volumes of the 
Public Records of Connecticut, J 850-2. Dr. Hoadley used his 
title of President upon his pamphlet ^'The Hiding of the 
Charter,*^ issued in 1900. Hon. Richard A. Wheeler used his 

(b) title of a Vice-president upon his history of the Town of 
Stonington, published in J 900. Mr. Bates has used his title of 
Librarian upon no less than seven books and pamphlets issued 
before the one to which objection is made, which have been 
displayed with other books in the Society's library, and placed 



in the hands of officers and members, without criticism; and 
upon an even more widely-known article in a cyclopedia. 
And the member raising the objection uses his title of a member 
of the Society upon the titlepage of the pamphlet replying to 
the one to which objection is made* 

Upon the second point, your committee cannot find that 
the question has ever been mooted, much less decided, in any 
other society. In a number of leading and typical ones with 
which we have corresponded, we are assured by their officials 
that such has been the case. Of the one most famous for the 
narrow restriction of its membership, the high position of its 
members, and its jealous pride of its name, the Massachusetts 
Historical Society, the librarian. Dr. Samuel A. Green, writes : 
**This Society has never taken any action on this matter. 
Instances are not uncommon where members have put on the 
titlepage of their individual issues the office which they held in 
the Society, or their membership therein. It has not been 
considered that the Society is committed to any opinion 
which the writer might express.** Instances are Justin Winsor, 
who in the great ** Narrative and Critical History of America** 
terms himself "Corresponding Secretary of the Massachusetts 
Historical Society**; and James Savage, its former president, (c) 
who uses that title in his edition of Winthrop*s "History of 
New Engand,** J 853. The librarian of the New York Historic- 
al Society replies: "This Society has not taken any action on 
the question. The later Dr. George H. Moore, librarian of the 
Society, and later superintendent of the Lenox Library, published 
several volumes and pamphlets with the title of his office 
printed on the titlepage.** The librarian of the Rhode Island 
Historical Society replies: "The query has never, to my 
knowledge, been brought before our Society for action.** The 
librarian of the New Haven Historical Society replies: "This 



Society has never acted upon the matter to which yow 
refer. I have always felt at liberty to «se any title that I 
might have. Last spring I was elected librarian, and have 
always added that title to my name on any circular sent out. 
I think that this is customary.** Reuben Gold Thwaites, the 
distinguished Western writer and editor, for twenty years sec- 
retary of the Wisconsin State Historical Society, writes : " It is 
not usual for officials to obtain formal consent for such usage 
of the title of office. I certainly never have done so, would not 
think of doing so, would not be expected to do so, and never 
heard of anybody else before who was expected to do so.** Of 
eighty volumes of Mr. Thwaites*s individual publications seen by 
the committee, in only one has his title of secretary been 
omitted. Another well-known historical writer, Rev. Horace 
Edwin Hayden, for many years corresponding secretary and 
librarian of the Wyoming Historical and Genealogical Society, 
has used the former title on publications of his own, and writes: 
"1 did not dream of asking the privilege. The objection is 
hypercritical. In my forty years of experience I never heard of 
such a thing.** Caleb B. Tillinghast, for many years librarian 
of the Massachusetts State Library, and now first vice-president 
and chairman of the Publication Com.mittee of the New 
England Historical-Genealogical Society, says : " I have never 
before heard of any objection to the use of a title in the way 
you indicate* For such a purpose a person*s title and honors 
are, I should suppose, and I think are generally considered, his 
property. It is practically a universal custom. It is simply a 
statement of facts, and the writer is entitled to such a state- 
ment.** 

Regarding librarians outside of societies, the facts are too 
familiar to need exposition. The title is regarded as even more 

'^) (Underlining on this page by J. T.) 



important for the information of the public than for the credit 
of the writer; it tells them on whose authority they receive 
certain facts ; but that authority is personal and not officiaL 
Such men as John Fiske, William F» Poole, Justin Winsor, 
William I. Fletcher, Herbert Putnam, Ainsworth R. Spofford, 
Richard Garnett, and many other distinguished librarians, 
regularly use or have used their titles, without supposition that 
their authority was reinforced by that of the bodies they 
adorned. 

Certain outside opinions, which carry great weight from 
the position and character of the writers, may be cited* Dr. 
Charles M. Andrews, professor of history in Johns Hopkins 
University and a corresponding member of this Society, writes : 
** The assertion that a librarian, when putting forth a printed 
work, may not use his official title without the consent of the 
corporation whose official he is, is contrary to the prevailing 
practices. I have never heard of an instance where a librarian 
either asked permission or was expected to ask permission. I 
know that I should not.*' President Hadley of Yale writes: 
**If a man prints his title in the exact form in which it is 
published in the College catalogue, there is not the least need 
of asking special consent.'* Judge Simeon E. Baldwin, acting 
chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court, and one of our 
vice-presidents, writes: "In my opinion, it is entirely proper (e) 
for one who holds an office in a literary institution to affix his 
title to his name, in stating the authorship of any literary work 
he may publish. Nor do I understand that the institution is 
thus, by any implication, held out as giving its authority to 
the work. When Renan, for instance, published his ^History 
of Israel,' he added to his name ^Member of the Institute'; 
but no one dreamt that the Institute was thus repre- 

(Undcrlining on this page by J. T.) 

9 



sented as concwmngf in his conclusions. The Centofy 
Dictionaty titlepage names the editor as ^William D wight 
"Whitney, Pfofessof of Comparative Philology at Yale/ Was 
Yale thus made its sponsor? I think there is nothing in the 
point suggested. The practice of the world is against it.** 

The judgment of your committee must coincide with this 
universal consensus of action and opinion. It would be per- 
verse to advise that this Society should act alone in first 
making a restriction upon the liberty of its officers which has 
never been made or apparently thought of in any other; and 
it seems evident that public opinion has never identified the 
official or member with the society, to the extent of holding it 
responsible for his utterances. Not only so, but the requirement 
(f) would involve the Society in a most unpleasant and impractica- 
ble dilemma. Either it must invariably grant the permission 
upon asking, which would leave its responsibility greater than 
now, with no better guarantee for itself, since it would be held 
to be acting upon knowledge yet would not be acting upon 
knowledge; or it must appoint a committee to examine every 
publication, set the committee^s opinion against the author's, 
and vote upon the question, or decide as to the permit upon a 
general discussion, which is of course impossible to consider; or 
must refuse it altogether, which would be a solitary ungracious- 
ness without object or good result. 

Leverett Belknap, ) 

T-. , ,, ( Committee on 

rorrest Morgan, >- 



Samuel Hart, 



( Publications. 



fO 



Upon receivingf this report^ I called upon Mf. Levcrett 
Belknap, one of the committee, who informed me that the 
several members of the committee wrote to different societies 
and individuals, and upon the receipt of responses Mr. Forrest 
Morgfan formulated and wrote the report that was signed by you 
all and sent to me; that there were some twenty-five of these 
letters of one kind and another, of which Mr. Bates furnished a 
part. He also stated that the committee had read my letter to 
you, that he had seen Mr. Bates^s book but had not read it, and 
you also had written me that you had not seen the book. 
Possibly this may be the reason the committee did not act 
upon the full text of my letter. 

Your first two references are to our two noted presidents, 
Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull and Dr. Charles J. Hoadley, as 
using; official titles. I remember well when I joined the Society 
nearly forty years ago (I believe in membership I am next to 
the oldest living member) a bare half-dozen of us would gather 
around the old wood stove in the Society^s room, and discuss 
historical lore, and have a social chat in the most informal 
manner; the business part was conducted likewise, and as your 
report does not show that he did not have the consent of the 
Society, it is fair to assume that Dr. Trumbull's ''punctilious*' 
regard for official correctness would have led him to consult 
with the Society, and that they acquiesced in the matter ; the 
merit and value of his work would undoubtedly have gained 
their assent. 

The claim in the report that Dr. Hoadley used his title of 
president upon the pamphlet ''The Hiding of the Charter/' is 
entirely a different matter. I am informed by the person who 
owned the manuscript written by Dr. Hoadley, and who 
presented it to the "Acorn Club," by whom it was published, 
that it contained no titlepage, nor signature of Dr. Hoadley 



with his official title, but that the title pagewith his official 
title was placed there by M f» Bates, who had charge of print- 
ing the pamphlet for the Acorn Club, and yet Mr. Bates was 
present at the reading of this report at the meeting of the 
Society November t3th, and made no attempt by word or deed 
to correct his own act which libelously impugned to my life- 
long friend Dr. Hoadley, such use of his title. Mr. Bates's 
actions are reprehensible. The plea that Mr. Bates used his 
official title on former publications is no palliation. They are 
akin to the violations of the Inter State Commerce Act, in that 
they are cumulative and serve to increase the penalty. It was 
the criticism of his article in the cyclopedia which caused the 
change in the Publication Committee and put Mr. Forrest 
Morgan there, whose servitude is apparent in this report. 
There is also another article in this same cyclopedia signed 

thus: 

Forrest Morgan, 

Connecticut Historical Society. 

In this case he is the whole thing. He is IT. How would 
this look signed to a Hearst campaign document, as showing 
the depths to which the Society could be subjected? 

The shifting in the report to the use of title of member on 
publications as being the same as an official title, to which I 
take exception, is evasive and puerile. The title of member 
simply implies identity with an institution; the officials carry 
with their titles the force and power of organization, and it is 
through them that all its actions, both legal and otherwise, are 
given corporate or organized authority. A member of the 
Episcopal denomination could not speak with the authority of 
a Bishop, and there are thousands of good men who call them- 
selves members of the Democratic party who repudiate the acts 
of some officials of that organization, but for which the party 



has to suffer through those officials. "Would the affixing as 
** member '* of a half-dozen widely differentiated societies by 
parody of reasoning make all of them responsible? 

''Upon the second point your committee cannot find that 
the question has ever been mooted, much less decided, in any 
other society/* This speaks volumes for the merit and character 
of their publications, and obviates the necessity of further com- 
ment on the quotations. It is the exception that proves the 
rule, accentuated by abuse. 

Judge Baldwin's question, '* "Was Yale made the sponsor for 
William Dwight Whitney, Professor of Comparative Philology 
at Yale, as editor of the Century Dictionary, on the titlepage? " 
Unquestionably Yale was, to the extent of his contribution, just 
the same as if his work had been uttered in the classroom. 
Professors are employed to represent the ideals in their special 
lines, and receive the sanction and endorsement of a university 
upon those lines whether uttered in the classroom or printed 
issue, and when they fall from grace, the subtle change by the 
unwritten law of corporate procedure is affected like the drop 
of the snowflake. Universities are jealous and sensitive in their 
exercise of control over their professors, and what their institu- 
tions stand for; to forego that, would mean chaos within 
their organizations. It is only within a few days that Yale 
University made public the refusal of the use of Woolsey Hall 
for meetings over which it had no control, for fear that the 
impression might go forth that these meetings were sanctioned 
by Yale University. 

The concluding paragraph of the report is mere twaddle ; 
committees are appointed for the very purpose of handling the 
incongruous reasons stated therein, and the writer of it is acting 
under one of those committees. 



The fallacious^ impotent and contradictory reasoning 
presented in paragfraph (d) in the report speaks for itself. 
''The title is reg-arded as even more important for the 
information of the public^ than for the credit of the writer; it 
tells them on whose authority they receive certain facts, but 
that authority is personal and not official/^ 

The publication committee have made their report, and it 
remains now with the Society to say whether they accept its 
conclusions and allow the use of official titles on untrustworthy 
publications, or whether they will exercise that corporate and 
institutional control which is practiced by the churchy the 
university, scientific, and historical societies. Every corporate 
body is a law into itself within its corporate provisions, and 
the Connecticut Historical Society is no exception. 

Sincerely yours^ 

James Terry. 



14 



miZmln'' CONGRESS 

Pii 

014 075 810 3 i 



